Live Streaming the RBC
By John Amato Friday May 30, 2008 10:30am
If you're interested, here's the live streaming video of the meeting...
John Amato’s virtual online magazine…OK, It’s a blog!
©2009 Crooks And Liars
If you're interested, here's the live streaming video of the meeting...
Login or Register to post comments.
C&L, is there a way to crank up the volume on your end?
Thank you!
I can`t hear it.Maybe I don`t need to.
this is straight up party bullshit
no one is being disenfranchised
the remedy is bouncing out the dimwit state party functionaries that moved up the primaries
primaries are not elections, they are PARTY creations
The first guy who spoke had a good point that the uncommitted delegates should count in full since they are not determined by the primary election.
The remaining speakers (so far) seem to be relying on slogans and images of the civil rights struggles.
I'm guessing the RBC will restore the uncommitted delegates and give half votes to primary delegates.
We have the CRAPPY PRIMARIES because we are still working in a CRAPPY ELECTORAL COLLEGE construct. Can WE MOVE AWAY FROM THIS CONTRUCT ALREADY?
Thought it was a telling moment. Everyone seemed to agree that if Florida's primary had not been penalized that 3 million voters would have turned out instead of 1.5 million.
And there you have it. If you count the 1.5 million voters that did show up, you "disenfranchise" the 1.5 million who didn't (but would have).
Anyone know where this meeting is taking place??
Orangutan. @ 7:
in the reality constructed by hillary clinton and her gang of self absorbed female sycophants who cling the unfulfilled promise of a woman in the whitehouse.
i would love to vote for a woamn for president, will amy goodman run?
I think it's in DC.
Orangutan. @ 7:
Washington D.C.
Thanks.
What a circle-jerk of bafflegab!
I am interested John.. Thanks buddy...
Even though it is ridiculous and stupid that is has gone this far...
Hillary needs to go... far far away
www.thisinstead.info
All I can say is that Rep Wexler .. is an ass kicker..
99Luf Balloons @ 12:
This was requested by one side of this meeting, and they're the ones in the circle jerk. Wexler is making them look really lame!!
99Luf Balloons @ 14:
I love new paradigms... they are coming... and our current one will fall away soon. like a cicada husk.
I hope that's not live streaming from the RBC bathrooms.
What a lovely family reunion... I'll be at the bar...
Geronimo...
It's on CSPAN too.
They are super lame..
Very Lame... none more lame then Hillary who signed the agreement essentially saying that it does not count... She basically ran alone.. and no one else campaigned there..
Now she wants it...(when it is totally insignificant)..
I never really liked Hillary... but I really have lost all respect for her in this campaign.. I do not even think she is a good person anymore.. she has a bunch of face saving she needs to do after she finally accepts defeat.
Oooh! The MI fight is starting.
rduke @ 21:
I agree.
LOL! Watching it on MSNBC and leave it to them to identify the debate in their graphic as "30 Party Insiders Decide Whether To Count Florida and Michigan..."
I wonder if the original decision by the DNC and RBC to punish Florida and Michigan by disenfranching all those voters was characterized by MSNBC (and other O-bots) as a "backroom deal" made by "Party Insiders"?
I don't believe they did.
But I'll bet if Obama had trounced Hillary Clinton in those states instead of the other way around they would have.
all i've been seeing since iowa is one campaign REPEATEDLY bending over backwards trying to accommodate another party who's busy moving the goalposts to fulfill some destiny of being POTUS
all that is left is for the poor guy to just drop out and wait in line just as billary somehow think he should have done in the first place
yeah i said it the big nasty pink elephant in the room and thats why all these clinton people keep coming up with these new ideas of how the nomination would be obtained
and i sense a lot of democrats are of this view and keep making excuses about sexism and all the other crap they can dream up or pull from their asses
they think HE should just roll up his campaign shut up and allow hillary to ascend to the throne while he go away and wait quietly for his "turn"
john i somehow sense you're one of those people...you can say t free speech is still protected
WOW, that presentation by the Michigan delegation just now was really well thought-out!
ysbaddaden @ 18:
LOL open mike.
Male: Those GD Clintons are messing things up!
Unidentified Male: No sh*t. No way we can let them level the playing baby.
Male: I'll be GD if I'm going to let them be snooping into my pie man. I've busted my butt the past 7 years to get ahead.
Unidentified Male: No sh*t. Middle class is going to pay for this. They need to be punished.
I'm watching it on CNN.com. Volume is good.
I am watching it via her... no probs with volume.
so basically the dems make rules that are meant to be broken
what a joke the party is
more lies from the dis ingenious clinton camp
from americablog lol such liars they are
Sen. Levin reminds me of Detective Sipowicz.
23 Orangutan.
I practically grew up on Orange Tang,
Do they even make Grape Tang anymore?
ysbaddaden @ 33:
I don't think that the Clinton camp will go for this line of thinking.
27 L.A. Confidential
Live from the RBC streaming bathroom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH2nQHPs4aA
Hillary Clinton is solely responsible for this circus. She has escalated this fight with disingenuous comparisons to Myanmar and the 2000 US presidential election. Her feeble lies make her sound more like Karl Rove. This has nothing to do with counting all the votes. It's a primary process. Not a general election. The party sets the rules. They rules should be followed.
Yes, the Obama people continuing to move the goal posts is truly annoying.
The deal as of 1984 has been that the 795, 796 or 797 superdelegates were to view the distribution of pledged delegates and cast their votes in order to override the kind of general election-losing, McGovern-like distribution of pledged delegates from red state caucuses the Dems aren't going to win in the general election anyway that marks the Obama position.
But the Obama people somehow REMOVED, not just "moved", that critical goal post (with the help of mainstream media) and have convinced almost everyone that the purpose of the superdelegates is to simply ratify the kind of general election-losing, McGovern-like distribution of pledged delegates that Obama now has.
Aside from that, the Obama people also moved the goal post from achieving the target number of total delegates to win the nomination into "But we've won the most states", then "But we've won more pledged delegates", "But we've won the majority of total delegates so far", none of which is the criteria winning the nomination or for being simply ratified by the 797 superdelegates.
Randi Rhodes said a many months ago that Clinton created this scenario (leaving her name on the MI ballot) as "insurance", in the event she was losing this contest.
I now believe this.
I want to see the Clinton dynasty fall flat on its face now. I'm sick of her, sick of her crybaby supporters, and sick of their rovian tactics. That woman purposely left her name on the ballot.
Clinton and her supporters excel at one thing: polarizing people. She's a divider, not a uniter. She's a cheater, and her supporters are two-faced. They are all weak.
I've seen their kind in the corporate environment: They wear their indignation as a badge of honor: woe is us, we are victims. All the while, they know right from wrong. They don't care who they're defecating on, because the end justifies their means.
Harold Ickes is an asshole. He sounds like Hillarys personal Truman Capote, without talent.
Ickes: BWHAAAAAAA!!!! If we don't get what we want it will do "enormous viloence" to this party!!!
These people will say anything, do anything, ruin anything to get elected.
It's Me @ 37:
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
This was a flawed primary. Clinton signed the pledge to ignore the results. Now she wants all the delegates in a primary that shouldn't be counted.
Pathetic.
I still don't think MI should seat any delegates (and I voted in MI), but Levin kicks ass! After all of the embarrassment I've suffered from this primary thing, Levin still makes me proud. Dang, he's the only one I've heard today who make any sense at all.
Why hasn't he ever run for POTUS?
I'm watching the Clinton people press Carl Levin.
These people are purely gluttons. Not only do they want full delegate rights, but then they don't want any sort of compromise that would give Obama any delegates. They keep citing fair reflection, that those other voters didn't matter, that their intentions don't matter. Then they want to just leave those uncommitted delegates uncommitted, so that the campaigns can just persuade them to vote for them.
No compromise, no unity. Those are their words, not mine. "I understand the need for compromise, but a compromise for one person is not always a compromise for the other." These delegates shouldn't even be seated in the first place! Those were the rules, everyone agreed to them! I LIVE in Florida, I didn't vote because I was told it wasn't going to count! It sucked, but these people complaining that they went out and voted have no right to demand that those votes should be counted. You were told just as I was.
Those were the rules, everyone agreed, and if Hillary Clinton was winning right now, she'd be demanding that these delegates shouldn't be seated out of the other corner of her mouth.
But the fact of the matter is, despite my own feelings on the subject, there needs to be some kind of seating of delegates. But for the Clinton people to be demanding no compromise and to seat these delegates fully...it makes me sick to my stomach. These Clintons, the same slimy crooks that they've always been.
But I loved Levin's response to the Clinton people.
"You're giving a fair reflection of a flawed primary."
Clinton and her supporters excel at one thing: polarizing people. She’s a divider, not a uniter. She’s a cheater, and her supporters are two-faced. They are all weak.
The operative word in this graph is weak
Revolutionaire @ 43:
That's what I loved too. And the fact that, in a fashion, he stated the primary system itself was flawed. That is part of the point, at least in the case of MI.
I'm a MI voter who chose not to stay home. Mr. G and I were all for Edwards but went out to cast our 'uncommitted' anyway. Even though we knew the votes wouldn't count we still thought it made a statement. Not that I was totally against Hillary at that point or anything. We just wanted votes cast on the dem side of the ballot regardless. I wanted to send the message that I would cast a ballot for 'uncommitted' before I would vote on the full-slate of republicans (and have my vote count).
This whole exercise demonstrates perfectly how dislocated these people are from us. They have totally lost the big picture here. The federal
government has become a fascist instrument of the military industrial complex, and they are pondering such foolishness as if it were serious.
We need go greatly weaken the influence of federal government. Let us begin by educating ourselves to stop providing soldiers to them, and by eliminating religion from our lives. Let us live in peace in our own chosen State without the meddling and thievery of a federal government. It has greatly outlived it's use.
Is this woman with the red hair a clinton supporter?
i say, give all the votes from florida and michigan to......KUCINICH
The MI vote:
1. It was not going to count.
2. There was to be no campaigning in the state.
What part of that doesn't Elizabeth Smith understand when she asked, why would a major candidate remove their name from the ballot?
Just total insincerity by the Clinton people. They could not be more disingenuous or sneaky.
Yes, the woman with the read hair is a Clinton supporter: an insincere one.
I can't believe they are going to disenfranchize all of the voters that didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count.
Why won't they just follow on the rules the DNC laid out and all the candidates agreed on, including Hillary? ...
uncle joe hussein mccarthy @ 48:
like the grape tang....... I don't think the Clinton camp will go for that argument.
Lollimom @ 49:
Make that "phony red hair."
joeyess @ 41:
Hillary (and her supporters) remind me of the times I used to play board games with my little sister (me @ 13 and her @ 10 years). She was very competitive, and being older, I would usually spot her some points or otherwise give her a handicap to even things out. But we would BOTH SET THE AGREED UPON RULES FIRST before playing. When I would eventually win, my sister would overturn the board, throw pieces, and jump up and down with her fingers in her ears screaming "I WON, I WON, I WON!... I'm not listening, you cheated" ... etc. I would just laugh and say "whatever, but you know the truth". It got so bad that I would let her win many times just to appease her, to keep things civil in the house (my mom: "Billy, let your little sister win sometimes, it means more to her"). LOL
Of course the stakes are much higher now. I have no doubt that if the situation were totally reversed, (delegate count, FL and MI tickets, etc.) Obama would have long ago dropped out and would right now be stumping for Hillary, and working to unite the party. This is the big difference. Obama, a man of his word, Hillery, not so much. Like my 10 year old sister, Clinton would smash the board game before admitting defeat.
Undeclared superdelegates: End this now!
yill @ 53:
Heh
l
48 uncle joe hussein mccarthy Says: i say, give all the votes from florida and michigan to……KUCINICH
Elizabeth?
This former MI governor who is representing Clinton has the most elastic morality I've seen in public since Clinton tried to redefine the meaning of "is."
Blanchard just told a bald-faced lie. Or, at best, a made a grossly misleading statement: "I had never seen Clinton's comment on MI votes not counting reported in the media before the election in MI. MI voters were not aware of this until after the election".
Wrong! It was all over the news in my area and we were all fully aware that our votes would not be counted. Hell, I got that fact from our crappy MSM local news that usually spends more time on the cat in the tree than a real issue.
This is nonsense. I can't watch it anymore.
Wasn't this guy the Mayor of Flint? Didn't he appear in "Roger and Me"?
He was an idiot then - advocated the opening of Waterstreet Pavillion and the opening of "AutoWorld" - and he's an idiot now.
Jim Blanchard, presenter for Hillary Clinton campaign, is also disingenuous.
The candidates signed a pledge to not campaign: Leaving one's name on a ballot is clearly campaigning for votes that won't count, at the time of voting.
He says all the other candidates had a "flawed strategy." Another disingenuous comment. The other candidates did the moral, ethical, sensible thing to do: removed their names from a ballot that would not count.
Clinton smelled opportunity in the event of a loss, and left her name on the ballot.
That's not a good strategy on Clinton's part: It's being a skunk, it's being Rove-lite, it's being a liar.
"No campaigning" means removing one's name from a ballot, period. Leaving one's name on the ballot means, "VOTE FOR ME", at the time the vote will be cast.
What an intellectually flawed argument. This guy's thinking is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
if the mich and/or fl delegates are not seated at the convention...the voters in that state will end up voting for mccain??
this is a horrible argument
joeyess @ 59:
You are correct. He is indeed the idiot of whom you speak. We also had the honor of seeing him elected governor; something that turned the stomachs of most decent democrats who voted for him.
Mao Tse Tung once approximately said, "There is confusion under the sun, and the situation is excellent."
I don't think he was talking about the Democratic nomination at the time though.
___________________________________________________________________
36 DaveK Says: Hillary Clinton is solely responsible for this circus.
____________________________________________________________________
I like circuses
When are all the clowns going to come spilling out of their tiny car?
So that's Harold Ickes. What a Ghoul! He is a most repulsive being.
I live in Kansas. I feel for the citizens of Michigan for having to suffer under the leadership of this hack Blanchard.
Jesus, what a tool.
"voters that were told that this primary wouldn't count, should also be penalized for not voting"? What does that even mean?
correction: shouldn't.
The idea that promoting tourism in FLINT MICHIGAN is inane in and of itself. It's like claiming that tourism is important to Overland Park Kansas.
Jesus-H-Christ-On-A-Popsicle-Stick!!
joeyess @ 66:
This is why he ended up losing to John Engler, the republican who brought our state to the miserable condition we are now in. Imagine Blanchard, only 10 times worse and a republican to boot. That time was almost enough to make me want to sneak over the border into Canada and stay there until someone told me it was safe to come out.
Donna Brazille just pwned this jackass!
joeyess @ 71:
I'm breathless from my happy dance. God I love that lady!! Finally, someone did what needed to be done. I wish they could have given her 10 more minutes to whop on his ass.
Gretchen @ 70:
He's horrible. And a sycophant to boot.
I have a feeling that this isn't going well for the Clinton camp.
joeyess @ 71:
And Blanchard comes back and says Hillary DID play by the rules.
She cheated. She campaigned by leaving her name on the ballot. Campaigning took place at the time the ballot was being cast: her name on the ballot translated to "Vote for me."
Why the Obama people aren't using this argument puzzles me.
The Democratic Party, ya' gotta love em', always looking for the way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Any outside observer looking at the ham fisted way the DNC dealt with the issue of Michigan and Florida in the first place and, of course, the very existence of super delegates would really have to question the DNC's commitment to the concept of democracy. I fully expected the more, let us say, vocal supporters of Senator Obama to take the position that it is perfectly logical to disenfranchise the voters of those states because of something somebody else did. Of course, I also know that if the shoe was on the other foot they would be flipping out about the injustice of it all. It really won't make any difference now to who becomes the nominee, almost certainly Obama, yet the matter must be settled. The Senator from Illinois is very wisely keeping his head down on this issue. He can't be seen, at least publicly, trying to keep those states unrepresented because he will not be able to ask for their votes in November with a straight face. The farther this thing goes the more I admire his political instincts. They show a level of political maturity and savvy I confess I did not expect to see in a relatively young politcian.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor her campaign have broken any rules. Nor have they asked the DNC to break any rules. What you are witnessing today was an option built into the game from the beginning and no one is being forced to break a rule. In fact, it is a process created and willingly participated in by the rule makers.
Why can't the Obama supporters endure a simple democratic nomination process without crying foul or whining that someone is breaking the rules?
joeyess @ 67:
Democratic voters were told that their vote wouldn't count. Some of them therefore choose not to vote. We have no way of knowing how the vote would have turned out if those people had voted, so if you accept the current results you're disenfranchising (to use a word the other side keeps using) the voters who didn't vote.
Gretchen @ 63:
No, Blanchard was not the Mayor of Flint. From '75-'83, Blanchard was a US Rep for the 18th District, which, iirc, was mostly Oakland County...but it might have been Wayne County (Detroit, mostly, but you know that, Gretchen.).
And, joeyess, Blanchard hasn't been Governor of MI since '90. He served as the US Ambassador to Canada from '93-'96, so you can figure where his loyalties lay (lie? I never get that one right).
Zac @ 78:
Very true. They should have had a do over of some sort for this reason alone.
Quesion: It was stated, by the committee, if you hold elections early (FLA MICH), your votes will not be counted, delegates not seated. This is an appeal (allowed to that rule). Why not keep the ruling as stated and tell these 2 states, tough?
PS: I live and Fl and did not vote, cause it would not count.
joeyess @ 69:
Yeah, that's the sentiment in most of Michigan, too, concerning Flint.
Thing is, Michigan is a traditional summer tourist destination, mostly for our beaches (the forests, especially in the UP, are big attractions, too). While Flint was dying from GM's plant closures, they saw much of the rest of the state making money from tourism and figured they could grab a slice of the pie.
It's Me @ 77:
What is it you want? How can I, as an Obama supporter--one who has agreed to vote for Clinton if she becomes the nominee, much as I do not prefer her--give it to you? How can I help rectify this in a way that works for both you and me? A solution that keeps John McCain from being elected and having 4,000+ more soldiers and countless Iraqis die for a lie?
Andy K Jong Il @ 79:
I was referring to his appearance in "Roger and Me", nothing else. I think the 18th district includes part of Oakland and Wayne counties and does include Flint. I wasn't sure about the Flint connection and couldn't remember exactly what his elected position was at the time of the movie.
Heck, all us hicks from the western part of the state just refer to anything in that corner 'over there' as "Deetroyt". Ain't Flint a part of Deetroyt? The rural folk here consider Deetroyt on the same level as they do "'effin Lansing". Which is pretty low.
Andy K Jong Il @ 82:
Yeah, who could resist touring empty GM plants and block after block of abandoned houses and empty lots? A virtual paradise that would be impossible for any tourist to resist!
I was there exactly twice in the 80's and it was depressing.
PhotoZel @ 81:
To answer your question: because the Republicans will take those states. You can't tell people that their vote shouldn't count now and ask for it later in November. The Republicans will have a field day with this and not just in Mich. And Fla. Some sort of solution must be found.
Peter G @ 86:
They're going to be seated, probably at 50%. Republicans will have nothing to say about that because they did the same thing in those states.
Zac @ 78:
__________
Some talking heads told Floridians their votes wouldn't count. Nearly in the same breath, they told us that there was little doubt we'd somehow be seated at the convention and our votes WOULD count. I SAW this, over and over and over, as a Florida news and politics junkie. I would have been a FOOL not to vote.
I heard way too much deference today in this meeting to people who didn't get up off their couches, or take time off from work, to get out and vote for their candidate. A "voter" is by definition "someone who votes." If people decided to throw away their one possible chance to weigh in on this contest, it's on their heads. Most Floridians actually following this election aren't stupid. We watched news, we read newspapers, we read blogs, we followed the national campaign, and we had our own preference! Why should we be handing out votes to people who didn't bother to vote? It's like worrying about distributing your Hallowe'en candy to kids who don't show up at your door. It's not fair to those who DID show up.
I voted for Edwards. I'll support whoever wins this, wholeheartedly. Who wins isn't the issue for me, as long as it's not McCain. What IS the issue, for Floridians who STILL feel the open wound inflicted by the 2000 election, is that once again, we voted, and once again, our votes are being ignored at worst, probably cut in half at best. VOTERS are being penalized. This has to stop.
I would love it if the RBC took all this testimony to heart, especially Carl Levin's, and decided to bring an end to New Hampshire and Iowa's stranglehold on early primaries/caucuses. If we could have national primaries, all conducted within the same week or two weeks across the nation, we wouldn't have these problems.
joeyess @ 55:
joeyness, you made the video link so tiny I missed that. Funny... so true!
Silleigh @ 88:
I would vote and PAY for that.
Gretchen @ 85:
I really like everyone I've ever met from Flint. They're cool, but kinda crazy, people. I feel kinda guilty pilin' on Flint, but, you're right. Not an attractive city. At least places like Benton Harbor and Muskegon are right on Lake Michigan. Geography made Flint prosperous, but now that the trees they used to build those wagons then automobile chassis are gone, the geography ain't doin' much to help.
PhotoZel @ 90:
Did anyone who watched this proceeding come away with any feeling that the committee MIGHT possibly consider this larger issue, and think about fixing the nonsensical system we have now? I want to have hope, but it's hard.
Zac @ 87:
The fifty percent idea will probably work but I think you are mistaken about the Republicans. If they can find an angle they will use it.
Peter G @ 93:
As always, it'll be up to Democrats to point out the hypocrisy.
By the way, I'm enjoying the audio from the live feed now that they're at break. Hearing people's random conversations that they don't realize is being picked up by the microphone is amusing.
Zac@94 I can't get this thing to work without freezing up. I'll have to get the highlights later.
Andy K Jong Il @ 91:
I've always liked them too. They are a tough breed, to stick out the past 30 years and there is something I've always just liked about people like that. Maybe it is the craziness.
are they on break now, or is it over? (Just tuned in.)
joeyess @ 71:
Yep, she kicked his ass. "MY mama told me to always follow the rules."
RobertD @ 83:
In the Politico a few days back I read an article by Hillary operative Lanny Davis "A proposed solution for Fla. and Mich." In it Lanny, among many other ridiculous ideas, proposes to give Hillary all MI delegates she "won" and then split the ones who voted "other" half and half. (When "other, clearly means "other than Hillary", he just labels the delegates "uncommitted".)
This is what I mean. The Clinton camp refuses to negotiate in good faith and instead offers disingenuous and unfair proposals to seat the delegates. Why? Because she knows she will loose if they agree to a fair assessment of voter intention. We see what is going on.
yill @ 99:
THAT's where the Clinton camp got that percentage higher than the votes she actually won? I was wondering. The rules committee isn't likely to do that. Some Hillary supporters are also asking for the full delegation to be seated with full votes with that 60-40 split. Since the committee isn't going to give the Florida delegates anything but a half-vote, it's hardly likely that the Michigan delegates will get full votes either. The superdelegates are apparently considered separately. The Florida Democratic party leaders (superdelegates) are saying they'll take the half-vote measure, too, since they don't want to overbalance the primary delegate voting power. Wonder what will be decided about Michigan's superdelegates?
Here's why I voted "uncommitted" in Michigan:
When we were deciding to move our primary date up the calendar, I was all for it. I don't see why Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should be able to reserve the right to serve as the filters in the electoral process, plucking out one defeated candidate after another, until my primary is pared down to two or three choices, none of whom are the candidate that I support.
So when the national party decided that our vote wouldn't count, I figured that we would reschedule the date or just keep the full slate of candidates on the ballot. Even if we kept the earlier date but lost our power at the convention, we would at least have voiced our support for our candidates.
It's when candidates started to remove their names that I began to sour on the election. It's not that my preferred candidate (Edwards) had removed his name from the ballot, but the fact that the state of Michigan would not count my vote for Edwards if I wrote his name in.
This left me with four choices:
a)vote in the GOP primary
b)vote for a Democrat whom I didn't support
c)don't vote
d)vote "uncommited" as a protest against all of the candidates on the Democratic ballot
So I chose "d)". I wasn't going to vote for any Republican, and I wasn't going to vote for Clinton, Gravel or Kucinich (I've heard that Dodd was on the ballot, but I don't recall seeing his name on mine). Not voting meant remaining silent, and I'm far too opinionated for that, so I chose my protest vote.
And when I call it a protest vote, I mean it! I don't want my January vote to be split between two candidates I didn't support when I voted. And if we lose our delegates for the purposes of nominating the party's candidate in the general election, so be it!
Now how we gain representation on the committees that build the national platform is a different matter. That's why I think the party should seat our delegates, but simply disallow their votes for the presidential nominee. Then I'm happy.
When does this clusterfuck meeting resume?
Ryoko @ 102:
After lunch.
But the McDonald's on the corner wasn't staffed for the rush. ;D
After lunch? It's 5:00pm there. They be running on mexican time.
Ickes is probably trying to buy the rest of the members off. Had to ask Hillary for another loan to her campaign.
Andy K Jong Il @ 101:
Interesting, and a fair solution Andy. I was an Edwards man too early on too, (but after hearing more of Obama really like what he's saying, and admire the way he's run his campaign).
I'm from VA so didn't really see your ballot. I was under the impression that there was an "other" option as well, which would obviously be a vote for either Edwards or Obama, (another "sticky" issue, but a clear "No" for Hillary.) Then you're left guessing how many Edwards folks prefer Obama, or Clinton, ... etc. ... Edwards endorses Obama... etc...
... did the MI ballot have an "other" box and an "uncommitted" box as well, or just one or the other?
These cowards are evading making a decision.
Better streaming and sound quality here: http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
Billy Bob @ 107:
A couple of the crowd bumped each other with their lunches on the way back in. Now it's all "you got peanut butter on my chocolate!" ... "no! you got chocolate on my peanut butter!"
There was a 40% vote for "uncommitted" in MI. That is a very high percentage for uncommitted but they were discussing earlier that when Edwards and Obama chose to take their names off the ballot their campaigns encouraged their supporters to vote for uncommitted. Exit data shows that Obama got 75% of that 40%. There were also more people voting in MI than in many other states. Clinton got 55% of the vote.
Levin's suggesting "splitting the difference" between what Obama and Clinton want with Michigan. Is that really fair? I think the only way this can be a fair election is if you discount it entirely or just have a complete revote.
yill @ 109:
They and the entire Democratic Party seem determined to stretch out this painful moment as long as possible. What? Does Clinton still think she can still this nomination? If the damage she has done denies him the election she should move to Bush's South American estate to join the rest of the criminals.
The vote to seat the entire Florida delegation failed with 12 votes in favor and 15 votes opposed. I believe 2/3 majority is needed. There is a part of the crowd giving a chant of "Denver", implying that they plan to take it to the convention.
please, they need to remove those jackasses from the room. those are not democrats. those are clintoncrats, ideologically crazy to follow someone based on name rather than crazy enough to follow someone based on their personality and position.
Dera God this is lame.
Listen to the RBC talk now. Clinton isn’t going anywhere. Fuck the dems. Fuck the party. Nothing but Hillary matters.
Her name alone (no Obama, Edwards, Richardson). 40% not committed. And she wants it all.
And Ickes is sitting there bitching about FOUR delegates! Four lousy delegates.
Unreal. Just unreal.
And Ickes just said they are going to the Credentials Committee (they reserve the right to…yeah, whatev).
Fuck you, Hillary. Just fuck you.
Enjoy your ride into oblivion. You're done.
That women is such a dishonest liar.
All about the voters…who didin’t vote, whose candidate wasn’t on the ballot.
Yeah, it’s all about the voters. BULLSHIT.
Man, why don’t they remove those people? This makes no sense to allow that level of disruption.
O.K. that's settled. (At least among the reasonable). Yay!
Let’s just hope Pelosi and Reid do what they said they were going to do to end this after the last round of primaries.
MsJoanne @ 118:
You were so nice last night. Obama will prevail.
ctk hussein ky3 @ 114:
They are a little lieberman-y in their behavior.
Ron, this is infuriating. I sat here and watched this crap all day...to what end? They'll go to the CC in Denver. People screaming DENVER in the background. What was accomplished?
Nothing.
I suppose what has me so pissed is that there is no resolution to any kind of reconciliation for the party by the Clinton people. Clinton carries alot of people and Obama will need them. She could derail it just by being the way she has been for the last several months.
Clinton or no one...Clinton or McCain and she will see to it.
MsJoanne @ 124:
I think once the super delegates make theit decisions next week, it will be over.
Ron @ 126:
I can only hope you're right. At what point do we look towards the GE? Sure, Obama is doing GE stuff, but no matter what he does, he needs her people and she has to come through with those people.
Do you see her doing that? Call me jaded; I don't.
MsJoanne @ 127:
It's either that or we will see McCain and his picks for the SCOTUS. Even Hillary's followers have to see that.
Harold Ickes needs to eat a bowl of *****Geeze, what an ass.
[edited, Site Monitor]
Ron @ 128:
This is a country which elected Bush twice (ok, maybe not but in numbers FAR too many voted beyond stupidly). Do people in this country have the ability to see what's in front of their faces? I have no faith in the ability of the masses to be able to connect dots A to B without some talking head telling them how to shit, when to shit, and if and when and what they should think while they're doing it.
Yeah, jaded...that's me. :-)
And the ONLY thing that gives me any warm and fuzzies right now is that McCain is rapidly losing his marbles on a daily basis.
That said (jaded coming again), I am awaiting his breakdown and at the convention the goopers tossing in Romney - he with those heavenly 747 shoulders and smells so damned good - to the voters as their candidate.
I put nothing past the goopers. Other than lies, deceit and everything else bad. That I definitely give them credit for.
Why do I think that what ever building or tree in front of Clinton when she got the call about this now has a cell phone embedded in it? Though I am sure that if Clinton is foolish enough to try to appeal this it will be denied.
I remember last year people asking "What are we (Democrats) going to do to screw up the next election?" I think we are finding out right now. We are going to have one candidate (and her followers) try to fight this to the bitter end....and I do mean bitter which is what we may all be feeling come November. Thanks a lot Hillary, your legacy will be set. The destruction of our party.
(note: Our party will be destroted if we can't win this election. It should be ours in a cakewalk and yet here we are perhaps throwing it all away)
Anybody with the numbers and calculator know where this leaves the delegate count now?
LunaStick @ 133:
Honestly, our party SHOULD be destroyed if we can't pull off a huge, ginormous victory from an almost 80% disapproval rate. If the party allows this, there is no party.
2118 was the magic number, I think. The estimated Obama needing 20 supers to clinch it.
Numerically.
Don't know what will happen if Clinton fights it to Denver, though.
here's the great part- one, barack obama essentially won this decision because clinton did not get anything of what she wanted. the party told the clintons that they do not run things anymore. two, even if clinton won every single available delegate, how many superdels does obama have banked? and even then, i don't think that the undecided (not uncommitted) superdels are not going to destroy this golden opportunity to win both legislative and executive branches this year.
hillary clinton can win the remaining delegates and the superdelegates can bitchslap clinton. clinton can kick and scream all she want and the superdelegates can put her in a padded soundproof room.
yill @ 134:
CNN is showing 2118 needed to win with Obama having 2050 and Clinton having 1877
Pledged, unpledged, supers, half-delegates...why am I having a hanging, dimpled, innie, outie chad flashback.
Ugh. :-D
LunaStick @ 133:
I'm not convinced that a lot of these Hillary-bot bloggers aren't Dittohead operatives for "Operation Chaos". Well, if she doesn't back off soon, she should just go on his show and thank her "supporters".
yill @ 140:
Looking at those in that room when the cameras focused on those yelling, they didn't look like Rush people. By that I mean they weren't dorky looking pasty white boys. That's the image of Rush people in my mind anyway ;)
LunaStick @ 141:
It looked to me like it was mostly women and many of them think it's time for a woman to be pres. They don't consider the possibility that Hillary may not be the best person. They just want a woman.
Ron @ 142:
Lets not jump to conclusions here.
While it does appear to be HRC supporters doing most of the yelling. Lets not forget operation KAOS. And it would only take a few rowdy's to set of the masses.
Ron @ 142:
I don't think it was all women at all. I heard several very loud men in there shouting Denver. Yes, there were more women but hardly all.
I hope that they all see the writing on the wall. My biggest fear of 2004 was the SCOTUS and it proved too accurate. We cannot afford any gooper in 2008. If you're not uber wealthy, those food riots happening in 37 countries right now could be happening on your block.
This is so critical...and why I am so nutty koo koo right now. :D
yill @ 140:
You are not serious, right? That is such a lame talking-point that one may start to think you are what you accuse others of being. Like it or not, Hillary has 17 million supporters and trashing them like that probably is not the smartest way to go. The "Rules" committee might have just lost MI & FL for the Democrats in Nov. and now you want to anger her supporters? Not too bright.
116 MsJoanne Says
And Ickes just said they are going to the Credentials Committee (they reserve the right to…yeah, whatev)....Enjoy your ride into oblivion. You’re done.
Wha Ickes said sounded similar to a lawyer reserving the right to appeal in the court of origination. Without saying that phrase, they can't decide to appeal later.
As for oblivion I wouldn't call the US Senate that. If Obama becomes president Hillary will still be around, unless New Yorkers vote her out.
what is with this tiptoe 'don't anger her supporters' spiel all day every day...how about we all like GROWN women and men whether you are for obama or clinton....I just want to own a fucking island and get away from LARGE groups of people....this has been the most sickening experience I have ever seen in politics...which is why I want CHANGE so much...I want a woman president and GOD I hope she is black or Hispanic :)
Bluesage @ 145:
The rules committee lost MI and FL (if indeed they are lost) when they first took away all the delegates from those states instead of cutting them in half. That way all candidates would have been on the ballots and we wouldn't be in this mess. What the committee did today is basically what they should have done all along. If you feel angered or bitter by anything I say, well too bad. I'm just an anonymous person on a blog. If I have so much power as to anger Hillary's supporters then they really need to take a closer look at themselves. This is the freaking internet for crying out loud. Find any topic being blogged about and you will find people being far more rude than you see here or many other political blogs I go to.
Bluesage @ 145:
The problem here is no matter what the National Party does, it will be breaking one of it's own rules. Awarding delegates to one candidate the delegates didn't vote for. You could imagine the outrage if pledged delegates to Obama changed their minds at the last minute.
They're not allowed to force Hillary out, but coax her, and for all we know that's what they've been doing all along.
If they count voters even by half that's breaking the rules they had at the outset this cycle.
And if they changed the clinching number of 2025 to a simple majority that would be breaking the rules at the outset.
They did change the number 2100 something, but at least this way, both candidates have some consideration in what is basically renegotiating the rules.
And if Hillary threw in the towel tomorrow (hopefully not her sanitary one), how many Obama supporters would be making fun of her about, where are those unrepresented voters you were so concerned about now?
And considering that one of the jobs of the president is to wrestle with Congress (baby oil and mud optional), isn't this tussle for the nomination a good test of a candidacy?
Login or Register to post comments.